| To: FaultLine who wrote (88441) | 3/31/2003 9:17:53 PM | | From: XBrit | | | | | 1100mm of armor is 110cm, or 1.1m, or about 4 feet. 4ft thickness of steel armor on a moving vehicle is an amusing concept. The author got his decimal point in the wrong place. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (82808) | 3/31/2003 9:20:06 PM | | From: Clarksterh | | | | Although the 1994 Agreed Framework obligated the consortium to complete construction of both light water reactors by 2003, years passed without any action other than building the infrastructure needed to support the construction project. The U.S. calculated that North Korea would not long survive its economic difficulties, and that if construction of the reactors could be delayed long enough, they need never be built. Newly elected President Bush openly expressed his disdain for the 1994 Agreed Framework. It was only in August 2002 that cement was finally poured for the foundation of the first reactor, at Kumho on the eastern coast.
The author conveniently forgets that N. Korea had to take some steps before construction on the light water reactor - and N. Korea did not live up to its part of the bargain (I believe inspections were involved).
Clark |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: The Philosopher who wrote (88331) | 3/31/2003 9:21:25 PM | | From: KonKilo | | | | If the UN had any integrity left, which it doesn't, it would publicly condemn these tactics.
Put the UN on IGNORE to go in and then call for its help?
I think not. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: JustTradeEm who wrote (87573) | 3/31/2003 9:21:42 PM | | From: Dayuhan | | | |
My point was defending things that at the core, one does not even agree with.
It sounded like this point was being expanded to suggest that some sort of “moral clarity” existed among those in favor of war that did not exist among those opposed. I don’t see any evidence that this is the case. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: LindyBill who wrote (87601) | 3/31/2003 9:25:31 PM | | From: Dayuhan | | | |
If we bombed the reprocessing plant, we would have to do so with the full knowledge that a attempt to strike back by them would mean we would vaporize NK.
Are you suggesting that we should nuke them if we bomb them and they retaliate? It sounds that way: I can’t think of any other way to “vaporize them. That seems way over the top to me, unless their retaliation is really massive, or involves a major WMD strike, and I don’t think it would be politically acceptable in the US. We can’t deploy nukes and wipe out a nation because they fired a few missiles at one of our bases or shelled our embassy, especially if their action is a response to an overt act of war on our part.
I don't think we will do this. However, read what Bush told Woodward last year. He really, really, hates the NK Gov.
Annihilating a nation because you hate their government is a bit much.
I’m not even sure we could nuke the large force they have deployed close to Seoul; not without irradiating a fair number of allies. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: KLP who wrote (88353) | 3/31/2003 9:29:26 PM | | From: Neeka | | | | I don't think BEEF JERKEY forgot KLP......he and his country weren't ever brutally attacked by religious fanatics.
Let us not forget that the people of the US aren't going to wonder any longer whether we will be attacked like we have been for the last 30 years.
Let us not even speculate that we are hated for believing in who we are.
Let us not hope that we will be loved because we were willing to take it once in awhile for the sake of some utopian peace.
Let us not imagine that the world community has our best interest at heart when it comes to the defense of our country or the survival of our people.......and let us never for a minute think that today the governments of France, Canada, Germany or Syria really sympathize with that reality.
M
edit: Let's also not imagine in our wildest dreams that the International community, or the UN, will condemn the fact that the Red Cross hasn't been able to see our POWs. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: JustTradeEm who wrote (87580) | 3/31/2003 9:29:28 PM | | From: Dayuhan | | | |
What am I missing ?
This was the clip I cited:
…nothing short of the actual outcome of the war will settle whether waging it was a good idea.
I suppose that this could be interpreted a number of ways, but it seemed to me that the author was saying that the outcome of the war will reveal whether or not it was a good idea to have the war in the first place. This is not the case: we will be able to assess whether the outcome was negative, positive, or (most likely) mixed, but we will not be able to assess the outcome relative to the possible outcomes of other courses of action.
Nitpicking, really; I do that now and then. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
